Rock Beyond Belief

[vbnautilus 48]

I guess if it annoys people that I'm defending a minor position while not even believing the major postion, I'll stop.

I hope you don't.

[Spademan 94]

I looked up "free range deist," but apparently that isn't an established thing. Fortunately I know what "free range" means and I could look up "deist." From wiki:Critical elements of deist thought included:

• Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
• Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

• God exists, created and governs the universe.
• God gave humans the ability to reason.

That seems pretty close to what I believe I guess, except I don't know why that last bullet point is needed. If God created the universe, why is it necessary to point out God also did something else?

Fair enough. Thanks for putting it out there. Though deist may not quite fit. Still a little hazy. Heh.And agreed about the last bullet, it's kind of adding frost to snow.

Anyway, one of the things I hate (from both sides) is attributing human qualities to "God." I think if there is a God (and it still is "if") it wouldn't be like anything we can imagine. So there's really no point to my belief that a God is possible, but I guess I don't feel as comfortable writing the possiblity off. I suppose even my explicitly stated belief is pretty wishy-washy.

I hate that too, but only in terms of the person purporting the existence of a humanized god-figure. Though it points to how the god concept develops. "If pigs could make up a god, their god would be a pig" and all that. I take issue with you attributing the personification of god to non-believers, however. It seems a bit odd to lay any portion of that blame on people who don't even believe in a god, and are engaged in discussion with people who are claiming a god with human qualities. It may irk you to have an atheist discuss the overwhelmingly common "jealous" and glory seeking gods, since that doesn't line up with how you conceive of your potential god. But you should take that issue up with the guys propping that kind of god up.On another note, with how soft you are on your actual belief in a possible god, one could make the argument you are "agnostic". Though I'm not a fan of the word, because agnostics are atheist. Believing a nebulous, incomprehensible force "out there somewhere" is possible, is not believing it is so. Why don't you feel comfortable writing the possibility off? Especially given you seem to think even if it did exist it would be irrelevant in terms of it's effect on your life and the operation of the universe? Seems to be a clear case where parsimony would come into effect, as it does everywhere else in an otherwise reasonable persons life.

I guess if it annoys people that I'm defending a minor position while not even believing the major position, I'll stop. I like the debate in here though.

Naw man, that wasn't what I meant.The annoying thing was not claiming any position whatsoever. One should be willing, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to have their position examined an critiqued if they're going to be snipe shooting a discussion, is all.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I take issue with you attributing the personification of god to non-believers, however. It seems a bit odd to lay any portion of that blame on people who don't even believe in a god, and are engaged in discussion with people who are claiming a god with human qualities. It may irk you to have an atheist discuss the overwhelmingly common "jealous" and glory seeking gods, since that doesn't line up with how you conceive of your potential god. But you should take that issue up with the guys propping that kind of god up.

Yeah, that's probably right. I was thinking along the lines of the "if God exists, he must be evil" argument, but that's really more of a your God must be argument.

Why don't you feel comfortable writing the possibility off? Especially given you seem to think even if it did exist it would be irrelevant in terms of it's effect on your life and the operation of the universe? Seems to be a clear case where parsimony would come into effect, as it does everywhere else in an otherwise reasonable persons life.

Maybe comfortable isn't the right word exactly. I just mean that I kind of feel like there's something out there bigger than us. Maybe I just want to believe that even while believing that that bigger thing doesn't interfere with our lives.

[vbnautilus 48]

I just mean that I kind of feel like there's something out there bigger than us.

Does something like "the universe" qualify here? Or something else?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Does something like "the universe" qualify here? Or something else?

I meant else. Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I meant else. Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

Given that we evolved with pattern seeking minds that is normal and natural. I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone or anyone believing that something sparked the universe and set all this in motion but does nor has done anything to interfere since. I mean, in that sense it really doesn't matter. The believer or the non-believer alike would still not place magical thinking attributes to things they didn't understand, and would look to science to explain it. The idea of some interfering being picking and choosing a player to pitch a no-hitter while ignoring the starvation of millions of babies is simply idiotic and beyond reason.Religon tends to expand on the concept of magical thinking and put imaginary human-like attributes into unexplained phenonoma and even further into guiding principles over humans in ways to control or promote behavior. All of this is simply made up, without evidence and strictly a belief in belief.I suppose many, hell my wife included, likes to think of a comforting place after death, or a heaven, that her deceased father resides. That is probably about the extent or interest that she has in the whole matter and doesn't want or care to discuss it further. It simply isn't an interest other than that and she uses reason to decide anything important. I have no interest in trying to dispel that belief of hers or of anyone that doesn't weild their faith as a sword against others. The problem that I have is when people use their magical beliefs to try and influence government or laws and impose their illogical thinking on the rest of us. They do this on an almost daily basis and it's especially prevelent in society today with the new wave of Republicans trying to pass laws on everything from abortion to teaching creationism or promoting racism and bigotry laws. The Rock Beyond Belief concert is a perfect example of bigotry against non-believers. The Ft spend tons of money to hire an evangelical outfit to come and try to push their agenda on troops, in the name of moral, and forced people to attend. When the athiests asked for fair and similar treatment, by law, and had every speaker or guest volunteer their time and travel, the commander simply denied them since it wasn't with his religious agenda. These are the type of things that not only have to change, they need to change. With Christians, their last line of defense when everything else is shattered it always, "the bible" as if it is hold some miraculous ideology that is untouchable. Well, when you can dispel the bible the rest of that house of cards falls apart for them.

[vbnautilus 48]

Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

See, that's what I call "the universe".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Thanks for the link. Ben Stein sure had him on the run, didn't he?

Just trying to win his money, obv

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm not sure why this thread died while I was gone. Oh wait, BG isn't here, and so why would it survive? The conversation was too great to let this die. Let's see if we can get it jump started.

Are you serious???

No, I'm putting my foot down: no more pretend-agreeing!

See, we disagree.

I really, really hope you're joking.

You idiots are ****ing retarded. I would expect this from SuitedAces21 or Mercury, but not from VB and especially not from Spade.How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?Of course I don't believe that Dawkins thinks that aliens planted life. That isn't the point. He proposed that it was possible. If you don't think he did, I could repost the link that you posted already.It's also hilarious that VB buys that bullshit response that Dawkins gave after everyone was pissed about what he said in the movie. I was trying so hard to make a good case for Intelligent Design. Sure you were, idiot.Now that we have a couple pages of Spade posts in our immediate future, maybe we can get back to the good discussion.Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)Also, in regards to SJ's deism, I think I probably agree with Spade, in that, if the God of the universe isn't a personal god, then what's the point. It won't make a difference either way.I thought it was funny how you guys were like "witnessing" to SJ to have him not believe in god. That was funny stuff.Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?Also, you have a huge problem with the origin of the universe. Let's talk about that. Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

i always love it when brvhrt says something ridiculously stupid, and then when pointed to the idiocy of his statement he claims he was joking all along.

[brvheart 1,752]

i always love it when brvhrt says something ridiculously stupid, and then when pointed to the idiocy of his statement he claims he was joking all along.

I don't ever saying anything ridiculously stupid, because Jesus himself protects me from the harm of intellectual dishonesty. Look it up. PARSIMONY!It's not my fault that you are an idiot and can't figure it out from all the obvious signs. I never once said that he believed that aliens planted life here, so tell me what I'm lying about Suited. Why don't you and I have a debate about this stuff, instead of just letting everyone else talk while you throw your daggers?

[brvheart 1,752]

Your misunderstanding of how the scientific method works is not surprising, is telling and, when joined with your particular beliefs, accounts for your absurd, 9/11 nutter-like conspiracy nonsense. You should research the scientific process some before making claims about the scientific process.

I would disagree with you if: you're implying that all important knowledge is tested and reviewed by the scientific community. Since forever, the establishment has squashed information. Today, you just need to follow the money. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that global warming is cyclical and that man has little impact on the long-term climate of earth. Let's say that this information is now known by the "system". How many years, realistically, do you think we would have to wait for this information to come out and be public knowledge?* I think that information is withheld or suppressed by the status quo a lot more often than you're implying. That being said, I do believe that science is changing constantly for a reason. Things are always going to be revised or refined, etc. Things have to change, since that's the whole point of the scientific method. But no matter how many scientific "facts" change, the control of information will always be there. In fact, I believe that in today's culture and with today's technology, we might even be repressing scientific method more any any time since the Catholic church of the middle ages. While information is readily available to anyone will internet access, any dissension could possibly bring immediate scorn which could, and almost certainly is, drastically hampering the process.*note: I have no strong personal opinion on global warming itself, although I lean heavily toward the scientific community basing strong claims on retardedly small sample sizes. One only needs to point to "the coming ice age" in the 70's to see how wildly things can swing in a short amount of time. Note also that "public knowledge" here means "not ridiculed as wacko or 9/11 nut job crazy", by the scientific community.

[vbnautilus 48]

You idiots are ****ing retarded. I would expect this from SuitedAces21 or Mercury, but not from VB and especially not from Spade.How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?

Please. Not buying this for a second. This is classic brvheart: retreat from defending the more ridiculous statements you've made by pretending you don't support them. It surely won't be long before you say something else which reveals that you do actually believe the--

Of course I don't believe that Dawkins thinks that aliens planted life. That isn't the point. He proposed that it was possible. If you don't think he did, I could repost the link that you posted already.It's also hilarious that VB buys that bullshit response that Dawkins gave after everyone was pissed about what he said in the movie. I was trying so hard to make a good case for Intelligent Design. Sure you were, idiot.

Well! That didn't take long at all, did it! What you are saying here reveals that you were unable to follow the thread of the conversation between ben stein and richard dawkins. From what you've said here it is clear that you still have no idea what dawkins was saying. What's even worse is that you seem to have no problem at all with ben stein intentionally misrepresenting what someone else said for the purposes of bolstering creationism. Shame on you.

Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)

The videos he was referring to are two threads down in this very forum. http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...howtopic=144770

Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?

This is so convoluted I don't even see a place to start. But really what's the point? If you're willing to support blatant dishonesty and have no regard for the truth of what is said in these conversations why should we engage you at all?

Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

evidently.

[vbnautilus 48]

If you still insist that "Dawkins proposed that aliens seeed life on earth", please respond to this post.

If I ask Obama: "What would you want to do regarding taxes for the rich if you were a republican?"And he replies "Well, I would want to lower taxes for the rich". Would it be fair to say that Obama proposed lowering taxes on the rich? Because that is exactly what you are doing. Dawkins was describing the position of Intelligent Design, not his own position. So to say he proposed that is just as misleading as saying that Obama proposed lowering taxes in the dialog above. It's effectively a lie.

[Spademan 94]

How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?

Taken on face value that you were "kidding", look up "Poe's law" in relation to religious believers.

Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)

http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#grid/...0C3C1D163BE880A is the first video of the series. If you're willing to put in the time and effort to read up to 15 books, watching an hour or so of a guy who, in a really non-confrontational way describes how he went from ardent believer to non-believer shouldn't be too much to ask. The books he discusses near the end of the series, "A History of God", and the rest, are what I'm talking about. Watch the video's first. They might even strengthen your faith, who knows.

I thought it was funny how you guys were like "witnessing" to SJ to have him not believe in god. That was funny stuff.

Don't be silly.

Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?

I could fill post after post answering this question, but since VB researches much of the material I'd respond with for a living, I'll let him address this particular question.

Also, you have a huge problem with the origin of the universe. Let's talk about that. Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

To answer the first... no, no I don't.The "origin of the universe", whatever you actually mean by that, you'd have to clarify, isn't a "problem" for me. If you mean something like, "what caused the big bang", the answer is, "if anything caused it, I don't know what that cause was, yet." Me adding, "Well, maybe an infinitely big Unicorn that exists outside of space and time shat it out, and the process of this shitting is what caused what we call 'the big bang'" doesn't solve the "problem", you dumbass.

I would disagree with you if: you're implying that all important knowledge is tested and reviewed by the scientific community. Since forever, the establishment has squashed information. Today, you just need to follow the money. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that global warming is cyclical and that man has little impact on the long-term climate of earth. Let's say that this information is now known by the "system". How many years, realistically, do you think we would have to wait for this information to come out and be public knowledge?* I think that information is withheld or suppressed by the status quo a lot more often than you're implying. That being said, I do believe that science is changing constantly for a reason. Things are always going to be revised or refined, etc. Things have to change, since that's the whole point of the scientific method. But no matter how many scientific "facts" change, the control of information will always be there. In fact, I believe that in today's culture and with today's technology, we might even be repressing scientific method more any any time since the Catholic church of the middle ages. While information is readily available to anyone will internet access, any dissension could possibly bring immediate scorn which could, and almost certainly is, drastically hampering the process.*note: I have no strong personal opinion on global warming itself, although I lean heavily toward the scientific community basing strong claims on retardedly small sample sizes. One only needs to point to "the coming ice age" in the 70's to see how wildly things can swing in a short amount of time. Note also that "public knowledge" here means "not ridiculed as wacko or 9/11 nut job crazy", by the scientific community.

If your point is that Ann Coulter can selectively choose already debunked science and present and spin it to make a point on Fox News, furthering her viewers ignorance of current scientific knowledge, yes. If you mean that a "power that be" can spin and cherry pick results, misunderstand them completely, or outright lie about the results, I agree.That wasn't my point, though. The point is that it is available to check yourself, rather than believing what Ann Coulter says because you agree with Ann Coulter.If, however, you, as I took you to mean before, are saying that the science, the peer-reviewed papers, equations and experiments are somehow "suppressed" by the government. That is to say, you can't find them and review them yourself (or more important, other scientists in the field don't have access to this data) because "the powers that be" hide or destroy them, or strong-arm scientists or something, you're a fucking nutter.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would disagree with you if: you're implying that all important knowledge is tested and reviewed by the scientific community. Since forever, the establishment has squashed information. Today, you just need to follow the money. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that global warming is cyclical and that man has little impact on the long-term climate of earth. Let's say that this information is now known by the "system". How many years, realistically, do you think we would have to wait for this information to come out and be public knowledge?*

Clearly the time it takes information to reach brvheart is not a good measure of when scientific information becomes available. Science is more available to the public today than it ever has been. Try for example The Public Library Of Sciencearxiv.orgComing from someone who still accepts two thousand year old knowledge in spite of centuries of publicly available contrary data, the idea that scientific knowledge is repressed is an absurdity of biblical proportions.

*note: I have no strong personal opinion on global warming itself, although I lean heavily toward the scientific community basing strong claims on retardedly small sample sizes.

This is the kind of thing that people with no understanding of statistics always repeat without understanding. No peer-reviewed scientific paper makes claims generalizing from a sample size that is "retardedly small". The inferences that can be drawn from a sample depend not just on the sample size, but on the variance within the sample. Since lay people often do not understand the relationships between sample size, variance, and error rate, they often "retardedly" complain that sample sizes don't meet their standards. Your standards for sample size have no rational basis.

[Spademan 94]

I could fill post after post answering this question, but since VB researches much of the material I'd respond with for a living, I'll let him address this particular question.

This is so convoluted I don't even see a place to start. But really what's the point? If you're willing to support blatant dishonesty and have no regard for the truth of what is said in these conversations why should we engage you at all?

Well, that was a bit anti-climatic. Heh.I think he was asking, "why do people believe in higher powers in so many societies, young and old, if it isn't the default position." He is pretending to want to know about pattern seeking behavior in the human brain, why people concoct things to assuage their fears and explain the unknown, ect. Asked and answered questions concerning human belief and behavior.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think he was asking, "why do people believe in higher powers in so many societies, young and old, if it isn't the default position." He is pretending to want to know about pattern seeking behavior in the human brain, why people concoct things to assuage their fears and explain the unknown, ect.

Who knows what he is doing. Part of the reason his "question" appears to me to be such a mess is that it assumes a history that probably isn't true. Monotheism is relatively recent in human culture, and even more so this idea of a "good" god. Dawkin's quote in the video clip we have been discussing does a great job of characterizing the old testament god, who certainly was not "good". Think about what an a-hole Zeus was for example. But even that is pretty recent in the timescale of human evolution (homo sapiens has been around for what 100K years? this good god thing is about 2% of that time). Gods and spirits in the earliest times were probably just pseudo-metaphorical descriptions of the natural forces that people experienced. The conception of them as separate entities apart from nature probably came much later. I also don't think they are originally explanatory in purpose like most people always seem to imagine.

[vbnautilus 48]

It's also hilarious that VB buys that bullshit response that Dawkins gave after everyone was pissed about what he said in the movie. I was trying so hard to make a good case for Intelligent Design. Sure you were, idiot.

Also, with regards to this accusation, please note that I made the following response before readings Dawkin's account of the interview that I posted next.

No, he didn't. I assume you are talking about Creationist Ben Stein's presentation of his interview with Dawkins. In that interview Dawkins was asked how "Intelligent Design" could possibly be true. In response, he offered a hypothetical in which intelligent life from another planet planted life on earth. He did not purport to support this view. He was giving ID the benefit of the doubt by trying to extract an actual testable hypothesis from it. He was speaking entirely hypothetically. Note that there is nothing wrong with this hypothesis, although there is currently no evidence to support it. I don't know if you are the victim of some kind of misinformation campaign or if you twisted this yourself, but turning this into "Dawkins believes life came from aliens" is pretty ridiculous.

[Spademan 94]

I also don't think they are originally explanatory in purpose like most people always seem to imagine.

Elaborate. (To spell the question out for people who aren't used to asking or answering questions in a intellectually honest, critically minded fashion: I'm him asking why does he think this and what does he base his understanding of the issue upon.)

[Roll the Bones 74]

Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?

Actually, this isn't that complicated. I would suggest this book which is a fascinating and easy read, Shermer is an agnostic that comes from an evangelical background, (and editor of Skeptic magazine) but really doesn't go to heavy on the religous aspect, though he does deal with it. And you really don't need to go back thousands of years to find the magical thinking you are refering. There are primitive tribes all over the planet that exhibit behavior probably close to what you are refering, though Shermer goes back even further to explain it from an evolutionary aspect. And as I mention often, he explains how humans evolved as "pattern seeking, storytelling, mythmaking animals". It's an easy read ( for advanced monkeys) and very fascinating as well, The preceeding book to that explains why we believe in alot of other weird things, like aliens and libertarianism.And if you really want to try to understand where athiests are coming from you could read "The God Delusion" or "The End of Faith" or "God is not Great" but I doubt you'd have any interest in those.And really Brv, I honestly don't come here to carp on you and I think you know I like you and respect you alot, (bighug). There are alot of other forums that I discuss this kinda stuff but to be honest, none of the opposition comes close to being as good at it as BG, nor as funny. I do think even he has run his course on trying to come up with anything remotely plausible anymore though. For me, I do find alot of this stuff interesting though and pretty amazing that the vast majority of the planet still believes like they do, and what a huge role it plays in the political and social spectrum as well. If you look at the top dozen or so Republican presidential candidates out there and tried to find their position on creating jobs, you'd likely be in for lengthy and frutile search, but you will find it easy to find their position on "sharia law, abortion, gay marraige etc." They are simply pandering to the religous fears of a spirit believing public and that is really, really a shame in this day and age.

[Roll the Bones 74]

And really Brv, everyone should know how the universe started.....Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...The Earth began to cool,The autotrophs began to drool,Neanderthals developed tools,We built a wall (we built the pyramids),Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,That all started with the big bang!"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.A fraction of a second and the elements were made.The bipeds stood up straight,The dinosaurs all met their fate,They tried to leap but they were lateAnd they all died (they froze their asses off)The oceans and pangeaSee ya, wouldn't wanna be yaSet in motion by the same big bang!It all started with the big BANG!It's expanding ever outward but one dayIt will cause the stars to go the other way,Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurtOur best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!Australopithecus would really have been sick of usDebating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)Religion or astronomy, Encarta, DeuteronomyIt all started with the big bang!Music and mythology, Einstein and astrologyIt all started with the big bang!It all started with the big BANG!

[BaseJester 1]

Of course I don't believe that Dawkins thinks that aliens planted life. That isn't the point. He proposed that it was possible.

That's an observation. What is your point? Do you really think that the thought experiment discredits Dawkins or is that suggestion part of the funny joke?

[brvheart 1,752]

That's an observation. What is your point? Do you really think that the thought experiment discredits Dawkins or is that suggestion part of the funny joke?

Antagonizing someone isn't really a joke.Also, "discredits" is definitely the wrong word. I don't think it discredits him as a scientist at all. If anything it improves his position as a scientist.

[brvheart 1,752]

If I ask Obama: "What would you want to do regarding taxes for the rich if you were a republican?"And he replies "Well, I would want to lower taxes for the rich". Would it be fair to say that Obama proposed lowering taxes on the rich? Because that is exactly what you are doing. Dawkins was describing the position of Intelligent Design, not his own position. So to say he proposed that is just as misleading as saying that Obama proposed lowering taxes in the dialog above. It's effectively a lie.

That's not the same thing at all. Did you even watch the video? I'm beginning to wonder.It's totally irrelevant how the question was framed or edited, because he said this immediately after proposing that aliens may have planted life here:"Now that is a possibility. And an intriguing one at that."If Obama says that after talking about tax cuts for the rich, then we'll talk.

Please. Not buying this for a second. This is classic brvheart: retreat from defending the more ridiculous statements you've made by pretending you don't support them. It surely won't be long before you say something else which reveals that you do actually believe the--

I'm not retreating. I should be, but I enjoy Spade's thoughts quite a bit.

This is so convoluted I don't even see a place to start. But really what's the point? If you're willing to support blatant dishonesty and have no regard for the truth of what is said in these conversations why should we engage you at all?

Thanks for ending a wonderful dialogue opportunity.

evidently.

But does it surprise you it was able to happen so quickly?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#grid/...0C3C1D163BE880A is the first video of the series. If you're willing to put in the time and effort to read up to 15 books, watching an hour or so of a guy who, in a really non-confrontational way describes how he went from ardent believer to non-believer shouldn't be too much to ask. The books he discusses near the end of the series, "A History of God", and the rest, are what I'm talking about. Watch the video's first. They might even strengthen your faith, who knows.

Ok, will do.

If your point is that Ann Coulter can selectively choose already debunked science and present and spin it to make a point on Fox News, furthering her viewers ignorance of current scientific knowledge, yes. If you mean that a "power that be" can spin and cherry pick results, misunderstand them completely, or outright lie about the results, I agree.That wasn't my point, though. The point is that it is available to check yourself, rather than believing what Ann Coulter says because you agree with Ann Coulter.If, however, you, as I took you to mean before, are saying that the science, the peer-reviewed papers, equations and experiments are somehow "suppressed" by the government. That is to say, you can't find them and review them yourself (or more important, other scientists in the field don't have access to this data) because "the powers that be" hide or destroy them, or strong-arm scientists or something, you're a fucking nutter.

Yes, this was my point. Also, I don't think the government is involved at all. (except for scientists that happen to be working for the government)

Clearly the time it takes information to reach brvheart

I think he was asking,

Who knows what he is doing.

HELLLOOO! I'm right here.

This is the kind of thing that people with no understanding of statistics always repeat without understanding. No peer-reviewed scientific paper makes claims generalizing from a sample size that is "retardedly small". The inferences that can be drawn from a sample depend not just on the sample size, but on the variance within the sample. Since lay people often do not understand the relationships between sample size, variance, and error rate, they often "retardedly" complain that sample sizes don't meet their standards. Your standards for sample size have no rational basis.

I got an "A" in Stat 101. FACE!